The matter of what is considered an appropriate mascot is complex. I am only going to address two issues with it. First, you made the statement "anything that makes a group of people feel uncomfortable is unwarranted." That is a very broad and generic statement. I would like to know how you and/or the NCAA defines "anything" and "group of people." "Anything" seems unnecessarily broad, what are the parameters? Second, why are schools with Native American mascots only on this list? Should this list include schools with mascots such as "Vikings," "Fighting Irish," "Blue Devils," and "Aztecs?" If they should not be included, why not? I suspect there may be a "group of people" somewhere that could be uncomfortable with these mascots.

Once again, the NCAA has failed to explain why it has taken on this unnecessary, arbitrary policy. It has still yet to define what is "hostile" and "abusive." The NCAA has lowered itself to the lowest common denominator. Instead of standing for something, it stands for nothing.

I don't understand why UND isn't able to keep their logo when they now have a letter from a local tribe who supports it... if I understand that's all colleges like FSU had to do to get to keep their logo.

I also don't understand where the NCAA decides to draw the line. Why is Fighting Sioux offensive but Fighting Irish isn't? I'm a student at UND, so I'm obviously a little upset and a little biased here, but I think the NCAA is completely inconsistent with how they decide to apply these rules.

I would expect UND will take this issue to court, personally.

I'm sorry, but until I hear a comprehensive statement as to why Fighting Sioux is Hostile and Abusive and Fighting Irish isn't, I'm pulling for the University of North Dakota to win in court or whatever settlement that will come out of this. And furthermore, if Myles and the rest of the NCAA were fully committed to removing Native American imageragy from all NCAA events, then they wouldn't have backed down from Florida State.

Officials for the NCAA continue to peddle the myth that the University of North Dakota is free as a bird to do whatever it desires -- so long as the university and its athletes don't mind competing on a playing field artificially tilted against them.

It's ironic that the organization established to ensure fair play and equal competition in college athletics is the same organization that sees no problem with penalizing a member institution???s athletic program over a difference of opinion.

Does the NCAA really expect us to believe that it's deadly serious about making absolutely, positively certain that every single person who attends an NCAA-sponsored athletic event is treated with dignity and respect? Or does the NCAA???s desire to enforce this principle extend only to people of a certain race and skin color? There's a word for that.

What's interesting is that throughout this process, the NCAA has provided not one shred of evidence to support its claim that the presence of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo at NCAA championship events has ever caused a hostile or abusive environment for American Indians attending those events.

The NCAA has no proof that the problem it wants to solve even exists at the events it controls. The only way the NCAA can get to where it wants to go on its crusade for social change is by considering evidence from alleged incidents that occurred well outside its scope of purpose and its authority. In other words, the NCAA policy is clearly aimed at controlling everyday life on UND's campus, not athletic events run by the organization.

No matter what one thinks of the practice of using Indian-related names and imagery in athletics, all NCAA member institutions should be alarmed at this transparent attempt by the organization's president and executive committee to rule by decree. The precedent it sets strips away the members' ability to determine the organization's agenda through a democratic process, a process clearly outlined in the NCAA's constitution and bylaws.

If UND, at some point, decides to drop the Fighting Sioux moniker, it should because the university has been persuaded that it's in the best interest of the institution to do so, and not because the NCAA put a gun to UND's head and said, "Admit that you're racist -- or else."

The NCAA President has ???called the myth about his being the ???czar of college sports??? a ???personal favorite.?????? And recently stated, "The NCAA has a responsibility to make sure its events are treated with respect for all and making sure that the environment is fully respectful."

I am an attorney with a federal agency and handle discrimination cases, including hostile work environment. Respect and tolerance is for all viewpoints, or is rendered meaningless. Respect is earned not dictated. Respect for all? What about the NCAA respecting the sincere beliefs of tens of thousands of University of Illinois fans, students, faculty and alumni (yes, including those of Native-American heritage, who have publicly stated their opinion in favor of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol of Fighting Illini athletics).

Also telling is a search of the NCAA website for ???Illiniwek.??? While there are several guest essays, NCAA statements and releases against the use of the Chief (and other Native-American imagery), the website is mysteriously devoid of arguments in favor of such use. I note that national columnist, George Will, wrote an editorial in support of Chief Illiniwek. Further, it is striking that the only piece of ???new??? evidence cited in the NCAA Executive Committee teleconference regarding the appeal process was a letter opposing North Dakota???s nickname.

With respect, Dr. Brand being the czar of college sports is no longer a myth. The NCAA???s has used its ???bully pulpit??? [quoting Dr. Brand] to force an act of social engineering against the will of certain member institutions.

I understand your desire to have a fair discussion, but the following is part of a letter written to the U of Illinois Board of Trustees and the NCAA "leaders" who wish to eliminate "hostile" and "abusive" mascots from college programs. Why choose only schools with American Indian mascots, what about all of the others who are not politically acceptable? Eliminating this from schools is just another way to show disrespect to the American Indians and their memory. Do we now eliminate towns with an American Indian name? And why is it disrespectful for one school and not another to keep their mascot? Who created these rules? Should I use my Irish heritage to create a complaint for the "Fighting Irish?" Maybe we should be called teams A, B, C, etc.

Leadership is the ability to unite men and women to a common purpose. In many ways, Chief Illiniwek represents a leader for many men and women at the University of Illinois looking for a common purpose. That purpose may be uniting all races and religions for the day, a year or forever. In today???s world, following a respectable leader and displaying loyalty that will last for a lifetime is often difficult to find. I feel the Chief gives us the opportunity to remain loyal to the University for this lifetime and for those who will attend in the future.

It is unfortunate the Illini tribe no longer exists. The creation of Chief Illiniwek serves as a proud reminder and tribute to the great Indian people who founded our state. As there are no remaining members of the Illini tribe, how can anyone really know the wishes of the Illini people? Chief Illiniwek is a proud and powerful created symbol who allows Illinois to recognize and maintain our state???s proud heritage, as well as, loyalty to a great state university. Rather than condemn the tribute to the Illini people, why not embrace it? This could be done by encouraging the study of the Native American people as part of the University???s curriculum, not only at Illinois, but all educational institutions. The Chief's presence has represented the University with dignity, strength, loyalty, leadership and intelligence in every possible way for many years. These attributes are important for all to learn today, and follow throughout life. The Chief???s only presence is through a performance consisting of a dance, costume and music that invoke pride and bonding at an athletic event. This tradition and the feeling it creates inside was the first draw to the University I had as a very young child. For many young children, their first connection with the University is an athletic event, and I would like for them to have that same feeling and desire for this to be the place they pursue a wonderful education.

For those who disagree with the decision of the NCAA Executive Committee, a popular argument is: ???What about the Fighting Irish????

Most people make that argument because they feel the Executive Committee has capriciously come to the conclusion that Native American mascots and imagery are hostile and abusive. Let me assure you, the decision was certainly not arbitrary.

It took more than four years of research and studies for the Executive Committee to come to its conclusions, and let???s not forget that these are presidents and chancellors of institutions. These are people who know higher education, and make decisions based on what their experience and knowledge tells them to be correct and fair.

As adamant as I am about the fact that this was not a random, biased decision by the presidents and chancellors, that doesn???t mean that I don???t commiserate with fans of schools like North Dakota, Illinois and IUP.

I have asked Dr. Brand why the ???Fighting Irish??? moniker, along with others nicknames that might be construed as hostile and abusive, hasn???t come into question in the same way as Native American mascots and imagery. The bottom line seems to be that there hasn???t been a lot of feedback from groups who think those names are truly offensive, as there was in the case of Native American mascots and imagery. Could that change in the future? It???s certainly possible.

"Anything that makes a group of people feel uncomfortable is unwarranted."

It's curious that the NCAA turns a blind eye to the feelings of Irish-Americans who are offended by the stereotype of the drunken, brawling Irishman implied by Notre Dame's mascot.

I origianlly posted this under another topic, but it is certainly relevant here.

"It's interesting how the NCAA, who has such an issue with Native American mascots and names, seems to ignore its own edicts.
Reading the writeups of the recent Frozen Four regionals and finals on the NCAA site, you can find more than one refernece to "Fighting Sioux." Doesn't it seem hypocritical that on the one hand they demand a school stop using that phrase and mascot, yet on the other use it in official releases? They could easily have stopped at "University of North Dakota," yet didn't.

It certainly appears that at least some portions of the NCAA organization do not agree with this."

Again, how can the NCAA explain this double standard within it's own organization???

So everytime a group gets offended the NCAA is going to mandate that a school change its mascot? When will it ever end? When will we stop bowing down to groups who do nothing but whine to get attention? I surmise that this NCAA decision will heap more negative feelings towards indians than watching IUP, UND, or FSU...by the way, if Fighting Sioux is "hostile" and "abusive," how come Fighting Seminoles isn't?

The NCAA bowed to FSU as it would Notre Dame if such an issue arose there. The NCAA is simply picking on small schools. I hope they rise up. It is time to disband the NCAA, it has past serving its purpose!

First of all, let me say that I am not a big fan of the Sioux athletics-wise, specifically hockey, but on this issue I am with them. As many previous posters have said, this is a completely arbitrary policy.

With that in mind, I have prepared a small list of schools with nicknames and mascots that I feel might make "a group of people feel uncomfortable" and hopefully these will be passed on to Dr. Brand and his "experts."

Miami Hurricanes - In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I think many people can take issue with this name as this reminds them of the horrible tragedy that ruined so many lives.

Holy Cross Crusaders- Are you kidding me? How in this age of political correctness and religious tension can this name be allowed? Certainly Muslims have to take offense to this as the Crusaders tried to force their religious beliefs on others and killed those who wouldn't convert.

Mississippi Rebels - I know that if I were a resident of the great state of Mississippi that I would take offense to this name. This nickname seems to imply that everyone in Mississippi has no respect for authority and has to do things their way. Is this the message we want to send to the rest of America?

Florida Gators - There have been at least 8 people killed by alligators in the 2000's alone. Should their families be forced to remember this everytime Florida plays on tv?

Michigan State Spartans - This offends anyone from Athens who lost a loved one in the Peloponnesian War at the hands of a Spartan.

Granted, this is only a small list of names that would make someone uncomfortable, but at least it's a start.

I was scared by a dog when I was a little child...therefore, we should remove Bulldogs and Huskies from the list.

One of the news stories on Bradley University being put on the NCAA's five-year watch list contained some interesting comments:

"Bradley does not now and will not in the future use (American Indian) depictions in its logo," President David Broski stated. "The university will continue to encourage in our student body the qualities of honor, courage, tenacity, loyalty, and endurance associated with the Braves name."

"We've done a good job at Bradley over the years of getting rid of Indian symbols," Broski said. "If you watched the NCAA tournament I thought that was a great exemplar of Bradley fans in action. You saw a sea of red. You saw a lot of enthusiasm. You saw a lot of excitement, and you saw nothing related to Indians."

So this is considered positive social change? Bradley keeps the name "Braves" under the false pretense that its nickname has nothing to do with American Indians. Furthermore, "the qualities of honor, courage, tenacity, loyalty, and endurance" are now divorced from any connection or association with American Indians. This, according to a Bradley graduate, is a victory for common sense.

Really? It's amazing what passes for common sense these days.

My opinion of the rejected appeals is that society is too sensitive. Above I read a comment of someone sarcastically remarking that he was afraid of dogs when he was a child. His comment ended with the thought of removing bull dogs as mascots. It shows how much he thought it was a joke. If the general public finds it a joke and realizes that the concern of removing the mascots are an act of over-sensitivity, then so should the NCAA.
I feel that unless the mascots are named after racial slurs or showcase acts of discrimination toward minorities then the NCAA shouldn't waste the time to object. It's not like a mascot is a KKK member. What isn't considered offensive by at least someone today???
That is my comment.
JUSTIN BROWN
CURRENT ISSUES IN ATHLETICS
SPRING, 2006
CAL U PA

I know the comment posted by Joe on May 2nd was intended as tongue in cheek. He does, however, mention one item that SHOULD have been of interest to the NCAA committee. That is the Mississippi Rebels and their mascot, the depiction of a "Southern Gentleman". It is representative of any number of very hurtful events in the history of the south. Heck, a high school way up here in the sticks of Vermont was forced to change from using that image. Yet the NCAA remains silent about it?? Isn't that just a little too hypocritical of them?
And how convenient that the NCAA store CONTINUES to sell hockey jersey's with both the words FIGHTING SIOUX and the LOGO???
Why should ANY of us take this issue seriously when the NCAA cannot manage to oversee itself?

Oh that was interesting. Soon after I posted a comment about the NoDak Sioux jersey appearing for sale, it disappears from the site.
So, why was that any more offensive than the image depicted in the SDSU clock now for sale? After all, isn't it a Native American depiction?
http://www.shopncaasports.com/pics2/STCO2-SDS-WCLOCK.jpg

I agree that it's hypocritical that the NCAA was still selling a North Dakota hockey jersey with the Sioux logo online this morning. I don't understand why it was there. I would have thought it would have been down immediately. You make a good point.

As to the Aztecs, they were never on the restricted list regarding Native American mascots and imagery.

Yes, that's the point. The NCAA was inconsistent in the teams that they put on the list, and then inconsistent in what they did after that. Inconsistent all-around, IMO.

Twins15, exactly the point that needs to be made. Why weren't the Aztecs on the list?

There is absolutely no logical reason to leave Aztecs off the list, yet retain Illinois on the list. Do you need to have a specific tribe in existance to be offensive? Doubtful. The NCAA should do what it was designed to do, and not worry about being a catalyst for change. If they really feel a need to get involved, file a lawsuit in North Dakota, and put their money up front.

Otherwise, maybe they should spend some of that time and effort checking out what disallowed benefits families of NCAA athletes are receiving.

If the Illni indians no longer exist, who exactly is being offended? To state that all Native Americans can be offended by a depiction of one tribe is akin to stating all Europeans should be offended by France-bashing. I find the lack of understanding of Native American history displayed by the NCAA to be offensive, and since I am made uncomfortable by them, their statements are unwarranted.

I ask again, who is offended? Possibly the ancestors of tribes who wiped the Illiniwek from the the face of the earth? Maybe they are upset that 200 years later people still remember them. Maybe they shouldn't have a say in this.

I live in the heart of the former Illiniwek homeland, and I never would have heard of these people if it weren't for the Chief. I can imagine the last leader of this tribe lying near death on the field of battle. Knowing that his people would dissapear from the history books would be upsetting to him. If someone told him that they would be held in high honor and rememberence generations later, he would be proud. Unfortunately, the NCAA has fired the final arrow into the memory of these people.

Great Job, Myles. Way to further the educational process. What do you expect from a leader from the University of Indiana? Speaking of which, the name of that school offends me and makes me uncofortable. Why dont we ban Indiana from all post season play until they stop using the hostile and abusive term INDIAN on the front of their jerseys?

"If the Illni indians no longer exist, who exactly is being offended?" That's just the problem. Many Native American tribes don't exist anymore because Europeans who came to this country killed them. And in honor of this, why should these schools be allowed to ridicule their memory by making them simply a mascot?

"That's just the problem. Many Native American tribes don't exist anymore because Europeans who came to this country killed them. And in honor of this, why should these schools be allowed to ridicule their memory by making them simply a mascot?"

Then perhaps you would explain why Aztecs is acceptable? They were killed by Europeans for the most part. Or why the Florida State Seminole team is allowed to keep their mascot? (please don't reiterate that the Seminole Nation okayed it).

Ok, Josh, back on the 4th you posted
"As to the Aztecs, they were never on the restricted list regarding Native American mascots and imagery."

Is there ANY explanation as to why the depiction of this Native American mascot was NOT considered? Does so educated a group of presidents and chancellors find that the word "brave" merits investigation, when the name "Aztecs" does not? Please, just one link?

I don't think schools who want to have Native American mascots are blatantly going to be disrespectful. I think of it as honoring them more then making a mockery of them. The NCAA should make some restrictions on ethnic mascots but not ban them altogether.

Still no explanations on why some mascots were exempted, and others were singled out for persecution. I still have not seen any credible evidence why "Aztec" was NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, nor how the Seminole graphic on the NCAA's VERY OWN website is permissible. How can the FSU logo depiction be less offensive than UND's? Or will the NCAA admit that they are more afraid that the defection of a program like FSU from the NCAA would precipitate a flood of further defections, and that UND is too small to bother them?
How hypocritical can they be?

Finally, an injunction AGAINST the NCAA for their actions. It's about time they are held accountable for the actions of a minority of NCAA members.

I'm writing a research paper on American Indian mascots. I've found much evidence saying that they should be stripped and giving good reasons why. I've looked to this page to find arguments supporting mascots. I do agree that the NCAA is inconsistent, but in this day and age it's hard to please everyone as many of you have said. It's impossible to nail down every possible offensive mascot. All I've seen on this message board is some well articulated ignorance and disrespect. Disrespect for others cultural beliefs. Teams with American Indian mascots stereotype all Indians, even though there were hundreds of different cultural groups of Indians. Maybe Aztec wasn't consider offensive because there are none still living. Maybe the Irish don???t take offense to how their race is portrayed. That is why they haven't spoken. American Indians have been speaking. The NCAA is being respectful and responding. The Florida State Seminoles didn't change because their tribe was offered royalties from sales. They believe the depiction of their tribe is accurate, whereas, many other mascots are very inaccurate and offensive to Indians in general. I bet if you talked to Seminole fans, they would be offended by the Washington Redskins logo. Consider both sides before bashing the NCAA for trying to be thoughtful.

You all make some good points. I was born in Tennessee, and now live in, Mississippi. I think the NCAA needs to look at all these schools on an individual basis, and if they can prove any discrimination, or anything derogatory to the Indians. Then yes take their mascot. But as far as USD of U Ill, I think the schools are doing a great thing by keeping the names and images of these once great tribes alive. After all, who here has heard of the illini other than on a something to do with the University of Illinois. I say keep on fighting Sioux. And as far as you guys mentioning the Ole Miss Rebels, you may not understand how we see it but as a man raised in the south i am proud of my heritage. Just because they are named the Rebels doesn't mean we are racist. It means a way of remembering the past. It???s a Southern thing and i would not expext you guys to understand. By the way i hate Ole Miss, I am a University of TENNESSEE fan. But i still respect their choice of mascot. Mississippi is not scared to keep its heritage. (The CONFEDERATE FLAG is and will always be in our STATE FLAG) By the way with all this mascot banning does that mean since Davy Crockett is dead and we can't get his approval that we have to change from being the Volunteers?

Have a NICE day. Everyday is a nice day in DIXIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am really tired of all issues with school names. Have any of you ever seen some of the names on military fighter jets? Why doesn't anyone say anything about changing some of those names. This whole country is getting too petty about things that don't matter. ITS A GAME!!!!